and future punishment, were all set aside by my teachers, and were rejected by myself. There were parts of the Bible that seemed to teach doctrines different from those which I had espoused. But I relieved my mind with the supposition that all systems had their difficulties, and that mine had fewer than others.

In the course of my ministry, as I became familiar with men and opinions, I could not but be impressed with the fact that a great many wise and good men received the doctrines which I rejected. Many of them stood high as men of sense and sound discernment. These men would be confided in, as to other matters. How, then, could they receive doctrines which, to my mind, were so contrary to reason? How could they discover their faith in the Bible, when I knew it taught no such thing? I thought much, read much, and was much perplexed upon this subject. Some parts of the Bible seemed to be built upon the fact that the soul is immortal. Other parts seemed to assert the divinity of the Redeemer. There was much, too, that intimated that this life is one of trial, and that its actions will decide the endless destiny of man.

Though the principles of interpretation which I brought to the Bible helped me to get over these difficulties in a great measure, yet in all cases I could not satisfy myself. And, besides, those principles obliterated some of the most obvious truths. The same reasoning that blotted from the Bible eternal death, also blotted out endless life. When I extinguished the fires of hell, I put out, at the same time, the light of

heaven. When I had proved that Satan had no existence, the same arguments would annihilate the being of God, and make atheism the true faith.

From this perplexity I sought and found relief in the following manner: Some years ago, I had presented to me a book, containing the studies pursued at the Andover Theological Seminary, together with the doctrines there taught, and a reference to the works in which each doctrine was explained and defended.

Taking the book one day from my library, I resolved to investigate this subject, and see what the advocates of Orthodoxy could say in its defence. I had access to a very valuable theological library, and availed myself of its ample stores to obtain information as to those doctrines which have so long composed the faith of the church of Christ. I had no design or desire to embrace the creed I was about to examine. But the world seemed full of ideas about the fall of angels and men, and of the doctrines of depravity, atonement, regeneration, and eternal judgment. It was my desire to know upon what these and kindred doctrines were based; to inform myself in respect to the amount of evidence derived from the Bible in their support.

For some time I was engaged in this work. As I proceeded, I was astonished to find how grossly caricatured the doctrines of grace had been, and how much reason and Scripture were on their side. I often found those despised sentiments sustained by an amount of evidence which I was unable to remove.

As the result of this inquiry, my views on most of the important doctrines of the gospel were materially changed. Indeed, from the commencement of my

ministry, my views had undergone a gradual and imperceptible change, till the grace of God led me to embrace fully the doctrines of the cross.

II. DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE IRRELIGIOUS CHAR ACTER OF UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATIONS.

Among those who composed the societies of Universalists, I have ever found a general dislike to religious duties and serious things. This seemed to be the uniting bond. To cast off fear, and to restrain prayer, was the great thing to be gained by a profession of Universalism. In the congregations with which I have had an acquaintance, I never found a family that observed the reading of the Bible as an act of devotion, or had regular family worship. And I have never found settled religious principle among those calling themselves Universalists. Not only have I never found devout reverence springing from the system, but none can live in it. I have observed it a fact invariably occurring, that, when a Universalist becomes serious and thoughtful, he will at once leave the Universalist meeting. And when a pious man embraces that system, he will abandon his habits of devotion in changing his faith. Men peculiar for their habits of private and family prayer, and for a serious study of the Bible, if they embrace Universalism, become at once as peculiar for the neglect of these religious duties.

The great purpose of those who unite in Universalist societies, is not to make themselves better, and to throw around themselves new restraints; it is not that

the Sabbath may be the better observed, and men reformed, converted, and made holy. But the great purpose is to put down Orthodoxy. All preaching that gives satisfaction tends to this, and all effort is directed to this point. If a minister, in place of preaching against religion, preaches against the sins of his people, he is at once censured as having "travelled out of the record."

Few make the daily reading of the Bible their dependence; few rely on its teachings for the support of Universalism. All its believers place great reliance upon the periodicals devoted to Universalism, to defend the system, and to explain away difficult texts. I have long been of opinion that no people, not even the Catholics, take their opinions so much upon trust as do the Universalists. Every where I have found a looseness of principle, and a disposition to ridicule serious things, that shocked my mind. Men seemed to value Universalism for the license it gave; for its power to cast off restraint, and remove from the conscience the sanctions of religion. When settled in Salem, I once attempted to persuade a member of my congregation to join the church. He declined. I urged him to do so, on the ground that for many years he had been a professed Universalist, and, as such, believed that all had a right to commune. His reply was emphatic: "For me to join your church would be carrying the joke a little too far!"

The fact that many of my ministerial associates professed to have little confidence in the truth of the system, or in its good moral tendency, was another source of difficulty. In private social meetings, ministers do

confess to each other that there are objections to Universalism which they cannot remove. I have heard old men point out the sophistry of an argument used in defence of the system by a young man, and then employ the same argument, when preaching on the same subject. Often have I heard a zealous Universalist say, "Our Orthodox friends do not know our weak points so well as we know them ourselves."

Among them also was a great amount of skepticism. Some denied the existence of angels; some, a future life. Others rejected a part of the Old Testament, and a part of the New. The idea that God answers prayer was scoffed at. Many observed the form, in public service, because it was common so to do; while all admitted that it was the most difficult part of the exercises. A student of Universalist divinity was asked by his father, who was a Christian, if he prayed. His reply was, "No, sir, not yet. I shall begin to preach soon; and then, I suppose, I must come to it."

III. DIFFICULTY ARISING FROM THE DEPORTMENT OF UNIVERSALIST MINISTERS.

Many preachers, those the most popular, allow that they preach for money; and that, unless well paid, they would not preach at all. A near relation of mine, a Universalist minister, has confessed to me that he preached to get his bread; that his preaching did not reform men, neither did he expect it would; that he was well paid for his preaching, and sometimes his hearers were pleased, and sometimes they were offend